On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 9:19 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The gap between what is being attempted and what is needed is a huge
> personal disappointment.
>
You have made your disappointment plain more times than I can remember.
It's on the record each of those
Please move on from this thread, it’s done now.
Seth, as Chair
-mobile
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:53 Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The real evidence of failure is the assumption, built into this document,
> that allowing mailing list paticipation is as easy as
The real evidence of failure is the assumption, built into this document,
that allowing mailing list paticipation is as easy as changing your policy
to None.
We expect evaluators to treat Fail with None the same as Pass. This says
that a lot of malice is also being treated the same as Pass.
If o
If this implied solution was working, we would not have a mailing list
problem 10 years running.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 10:41 AM Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:19 AM Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The gap between what is being attempted and
On Thu 23/Nov/2023 16:41:11 +0100 Dotzero wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:19 AM Douglas Foster wrote:
The gap between what is being attempted and what is needed is a huge
personal disappointment.
[...]
This is from a real-world conversation with a product support tech:
Me: I cannot use y
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:19 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The gap between what is being attempted and what is needed is a huge
> personal disappointment.
>
> The DMARC goal should be to block malicious impersonation without blocking
> wanted messages, where "w
The gap between what is being attempted and what is needed is a huge
personal disappointment.
The DMARC goal should be to block malicious impersonation without blocking
wanted messages, where "wanted" is in the eyes of the evaluator and his end
user.That puts the onus on the evaluator. RFC 7
On Wed 22/Nov/2023 23:58:26 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
Is there a point to this thread, that affects the text in the DMARCbis
document under charter criteria?
The point I made —death sentence to mailing lists— affects the text as an
exhortation to /not/ change Section 8.6.
For Doug's point, th
Is there a point to this thread, that affects the text in the DMARCbis
document under charter criteria?
Seth, as Chair
-mobile
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:13 Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RFC 7489 and DMARCbis are written as algorithms without exception
> condit
RFC 7489 and DMARCbis are written as algorithms without exception
conditions. That silence leads product developers and mail administrators
to conclude that the algorithm can be implemented without allowing for
exceptions. Why would we expect a different result?
Withheld information can deceive
On Wed 22/Nov/2023 00:51:24 +0100 Jim Fenton wrote:
I see that the DMARC marketing machine is hard at work. There was an item on
NPR (National Public Radio) “All Things Considered” this afternoon heavily
promoting DMARC:
https://www-cf.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214529474/how-to-keep-an-eye-out-for-c
I see that the DMARC marketing machine is hard at work. There was an item on
NPR (National Public Radio) “All Things Considered” this afternoon heavily
promoting DMARC:
https://www-cf.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214529474/how-to-keep-an-eye-out-for-cyber-scams-during-this-holiday-shopping-season
I have
12 matches
Mail list logo
